Re: BK kernel workflow
From: Alan Cox (alan_at_lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: 10/28/04
- Previous message: DaMouse: "Re: [patch 1/1] uml: fix mainline lazyness about TTY layer patch"
- In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: BK kernel workflow"
- Next in thread: Ramón Rey Vicente: "Re: BK kernel workflow"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:20:08 +0100
On Iau, 2004-10-28 at 16:10, Larry McVoy wrote:
> "Fair use" != "reverse engineering" in any venue so far as I know.
Reverse engineering is enshrined in EU law as a right (although this
started due to abuse by car companies not for computing). While people
jump up and down and point to that its not always clear you can do so
for the purposes of cloning rather than interoperability.
Ie its one thing to reverse engineer BK to make a BK->Subversion tool
but quite another to reverse engineer it to reimplement BK
(leaving aside that all the patch files are publically grabbable and
every patch Linus sends goes out to a mailing list so it would be a
rather hard work way of doing it)
I don't use BK. It's not causing problems for me.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: DaMouse: "Re: [patch 1/1] uml: fix mainline lazyness about TTY layer patch"
- In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: BK kernel workflow"
- Next in thread: Ramón Rey Vicente: "Re: BK kernel workflow"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
